| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2008 05:56:13 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
After seeing your shot I have pulled my image for the second time!! I will go back to the drawing board and see what I can come up with.
I might play it safe like the Doc and use a single exposure but I suppose some will say that is not in the "spirit" of the challenge. |
You do have the option to send us your entry for an opinion, if you like.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:59:29 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I think this is a continuous motion, the SC did not.
I am posting this not to call out the SC but to show another example of something that wasn't even controversial in my mind, but did not fit the "spirit" of the challenge according to the powers that be. |
Please note that the reason this wasn't considered legal had nothing to do with the motion itself. As I understand it, all of the "steps" did not originate from the same sequence, but were assembled from more than one run. If it had been a single sequence, it probably would have been fine. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:04:01 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I think this is a continuous motion, the SC did not.
I am posting this not to call out the SC but to show another example of something that wasn't even controversial in my mind, but did not fit the "spirit" of the challenge according to the powers that be. |
Please note that the reason this wasn't considered legal had nothing to do with the motion itself. As I understand it, all of the "steps" did not originate from the same sequence, but were assembled from more than one run. If it had been a single sequence, it probably would have been fine. |
Shannon, please double-check the ticket... I'm not sure that's correct.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:06:22 PM · #454 |
| If this was shot in one session then I do not see how it can be DQ'd |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:11:05 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
OK gang, after I saw Roz's shot and the DQ rational going back and forth I decided to submit mine for validation. Today I received the response, not acceptable.
While I think this is a continuos motion, the SC did not.
I am posting this not to call out the SC but to show another example of something that wasn't even controversial in my mind, but did not fit the "spirit" of the challenge according to the powers that be.
Good luck everyone! |
After seeing your shot I have pulled my image for the second time!! I will go back to the drawing board and see what I can come up with.
I might play it safe like the Doc and use a single exposure but I suppose some will say that is not in the "spirit" of the challenge. |
I don't see why people are removing these shots, for me both the recent examples (golfer & park) perfectly show what we are now calling time lapse and moreso than the other recent mention of photographing 'different' ambulances driving up and down a road. Its already been said that providing the image doesn't actually fall foul of the rules then dnmc isn't dq'able (granted it may not score as highly as one that fits this linear stuff).If it wasn't for the LoD I'd have been having a relaxing weekend and not stressing myself about all this carp. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:13:16 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I think this is a continuous motion, the SC did not.
I am posting this not to call out the SC but to show another example of something that wasn't even controversial in my mind, but did not fit the "spirit" of the challenge according to the powers that be. |
Please note that the reason this wasn't considered legal had nothing to do with the motion itself. As I understand it, all of the "steps" did not originate from the same sequence, but were assembled from more than one run. If it had been a single sequence, it probably would have been fine. |
Shannon, please double-check the ticket... I'm not sure that's correct.
~Terry |
as a postcript to my earlier post, if somebody shoots (say) the moon over 7 days do they have to leave their camera on the tripod in the park and hope nobody steals it whilst they are at work? |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:13:23 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
]
Please note that the reason this wasn't considered legal had nothing to do with the motion itself. As I understand it, all of the "steps" did not originate from the same sequence, but were assembled from more than one run. If it had been a single sequence, it probably would have been fine. |
Shannon, please double-check the ticket... I'm not sure that's correct. |
From the ticket: "I shot the same sequence 3 times. The third set of images is the one I want to use, except for the the last image. I want to use the last image from the first sequence." |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:14:45 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
]
Please note that the reason this wasn't considered legal had nothing to do with the motion itself. As I understand it, all of the "steps" did not originate from the same sequence, but were assembled from more than one run. If it had been a single sequence, it probably would have been fine. |
Shannon, please double-check the ticket... I'm not sure that's correct. |
From the ticket: "I shot the same sequence 3 times. The third set of images is the one I want to use, except for the the last image. I want to use the last image from the first sequence." |
I'm pretty sure david resubmitted another shot. This one is all in one sequence.
Message edited by scalvert - Removed reference to entry.. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:19:46 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
]
Please note that the reason this wasn't considered legal had nothing to do with the motion itself. As I understand it, all of the "steps" did not originate from the same sequence, but were assembled from more than one run. If it had been a single sequence, it probably would have been fine. |
Shannon, please double-check the ticket... I'm not sure that's correct. |
From the ticket: "I shot the same sequence 3 times. The third set of images is the one I want to use, except for the the last image. I want to use the last image from the first sequence." |
That was a different ticket. Check #11747.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:39:36 PM · #460 |
This is getting freaking ridiculous. If we have to go through these kind of gyrations to determine what is and what is not a "legal" time-lapse shot, then we should just slam the window and say they are not acceptable. Either that or allow compositing from discrete sequences. Does anyone besides the nit-pickers acre if someone shoots 3 sequences within a few minutes of a kid sliding down a slide and chooses the best beginning, interim, and final images to portray this action? If the spirit of the thing is to portray the sense of a kid sliding, then let it go. If the spirit of the thing is to hamstring photographers to lady luck, then that's absurd. I get a perfect sequence in take 1 except kiddo crashes and burns in the last frame. I run another sequence and get a perfect landing.
Who are we judging? The photographer, or the kid?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:47:50 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
That was a different ticket. Check #11747. |
OK, my mistake. I'm not sure we really had a consensus though. I would say it's a perfectly legitimate example of time-lapse, however there's technically no difference between this and the golfer (or even Kiwiness') shot, and we ARE talking about a technique with time-lapse. If the kid merely turned around in the middle of the sequence, the photographer could choose those frames and it would look like he's having a conversation with himself. Likewise, if the golfer shot had included another frame or two between each of the steps, it might be just as continuous as this. The kid in David's shot didn't stop at any point, per your definition, so what is the distinction?
I'm sticking to my recommendation of one simple, linear motion. Anybody find my temper yet? :-/ |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:59:56 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm sticking to my recommendation of one simple, linear motion. Anybody find my temper yet? :-/ |
I've been waiting for you to find it for several days Shannon and must congratulate you on hiding it so well ;) I'm sure you and the rest of the SC are becoming as frustrated as us mortals. Personally I don't think multiple images in advanced editing is a good thing (maybe expert) and look forward to this thread dying a natural death when we all become more at ease with the new rules. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 07:32:50 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is getting freaking ridiculous. If we have to go through these kind of gyrations to determine what is and what is not a "legal" time-lapse shot, then we should just slam the window and say they are not acceptable. Either that or allow compositing from discrete sequences. Does anyone besides the nit-pickers acre if someone shoots 3 sequences within a few minutes of a kid sliding down a slide and chooses the best beginning, interim, and final images to portray this action? If the spirit of the thing is to portray the sense of a kid sliding, then let it go. If the spirit of the thing is to hamstring photographers to lady luck, then that's absurd. I get a perfect sequence in take 1 except kiddo crashes and burns in the last frame. I run another sequence and get a perfect landing.
Who are we judging? The photographer, or the kid?
R. |
Personally, I tend to agree, however consensus has been that allowing compilation of the entry from several "runs" is not in the spirit of the rule. I personally believe that it's the result that matters, and it will definitely be the result that we have to judge.
This first challenge will be a big "challenge" for us, and it's becoming very clear that there will probably need to be some clarification of the rules after we get the chance to sort this out. There's been a *ton* of discussion, and this thread has generated a lot of good ideas and feedback. Now what we really need is a little actual history. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 07:43:42 PM · #464 |
To be clear,
This is one continuous run, all frames in order from the same pass through the playground equipment. Not every frame taken is included.
I had a previous ticket and image where the last image was from an earlier run. Hence, the confusion.
That said, the SC is correct in that this is a lot like Roz's shot. My impression was the SC felt that there were three different actions on this one, climbing, walking, sliding; not one continuos activity, say running or walking. My take is that if the image was several of him sliding down the slide (one activity) it would have been OK. I don't agree with ruling, but I understand what they are saying.
The question is, if there wasn't the confusion would this image have passed muster?
Message edited by author 2008-01-05 19:47:49. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 07:46:04 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
My take is that if the image was several of him sliding down the slide (one activity) it would have been OK... |
Yup, that's my take as well. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 07:50:06 PM · #466 |
Can I suggest, even given that it may be a lot of work, that once the entries are in and the voting starts that the SC take a look at all of the "questionable" images as a package deal in terms of how they decide what to allow and what not to allow so that at least they, the SC, can say we tired to be consistent and this is our reasoning when it appears that we were inconsistent.
It seem to me that one of the worst outcomes would be two have two very similar images in terms of how they were done and have the SC come to differing conclusions just because two different sets of people on the SC voted on each image.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 07:50:40 PM · #467 |
Well I'm in, I love my shot and it was heaps of fun to learn a new technique. The best thing about DPC is that it teaches...forces?...me to learn. The rules are confusing because they've been put in place without SC really knowing in how many different directions the creative people here would take off in. And lets be honest with ourselves the first thing we do (generally as a group)when we're presented with new rules is figure out how far we can push them. Meanwhile it seems SC are trying to figure out how far to let us push them. I think when the dust settles and we get it all figured out it'll be a great rule set, btw can the motion thing be used as a regular rule or is that just for this challenge? I'd like to see it stay, it does open up the way for some more creativity. I'm loving it that advanced just got more advanced.
I tend to think the Golfer and the Slide shots are DNMC rather than DQable but seeing as we the voters are still trying to work out what does meet the challenge most of us wouldn't know that. It's only through these looooong discussions that we'll get it figured, thanks to SC for your patience with out confusion.
For those scared of the new rules, try it, find something that fits in with Shannons guidelines and go for it. Be brave photogs, the worst that can happen is we'll all learn something and who knows, you might even enjoy it. :P
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 07:56:06 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
Can I suggest, even given that it may be a lot of work, that once the entries are in and the voting starts that the SC take a look at all of the "questionable" images as a package deal in terms of how they decide what to allow and what not to allow so that at least they, the SC, can say we tired to be consistent and this is our reasoning when it appears that we were inconsistent.
It seem to me that one of the worst outcomes would be two have two very similar images in terms of how they were done and have the SC come to differing conclusions just because two different sets of people on the SC voted on each image. |
We do this pretty much by definition, since we discuss and compare, using one shot as an example for another. This challenge will require a new level of diligence in this regard, and I'm sure that, outside very clear rules violations, we'll probably have to wait until most of the candidates are in queue before really sorting things out. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 09:24:21 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Yeah? and how's that working out so far? ;-) |
Aaaaa, shaddap.
:)
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 09:39:56 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Yeah? and how's that working out so far? ;-) |
Aaaaa, shaddap.
:)
|
Nice to see you guys still have a sense of humor in the middle of all this |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 09:40:43 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Yeah? and how's that working out so far? ;-) |
Aaaaa, shaddap.
:)
|
Nice to see you guys still have a sense of humor in the middle of all this |
Sometimes, if you don't laugh, you'll cry. :/
:P |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 09:45:17 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by fixedintime:
Can I suggest, even given that it may be a lot of work, that once the entries are in and the voting starts that the SC take a look at all of the "questionable" images as a package deal in terms of how they decide what to allow and what not to allow so that at least they, the SC, can say we tired to be consistent and this is our reasoning when it appears that we were inconsistent.
It seem to me that one of the worst outcomes would be two have two very similar images in terms of how they were done and have the SC come to differing conclusions just because two different sets of people on the SC voted on each image. |
We do this pretty much by definition, since we discuss and compare, using one shot as an example for another. This challenge will require a new level of diligence in this regard, and I'm sure that, outside very clear rules violations, we'll probably have to wait until most of the candidates are in queue before really sorting things out. |
Very Good!! Tnx |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 12:31:18 AM · #473 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I would say it's a perfectly legitimate example of time-lapse, however there's technically no difference between this and the golfer (or even Kiwiness') shot, and we ARE talking about a technique with time-lapse. If the kid merely turned around in the middle of the sequence, the photographer could choose those frames and it would look like he's having a conversation with himself. |
You make it sound like if the kid did appear to interact with himself that it would cross over some new line. That line was crossed a long time ago when the scene was photoshopped into existence and not in the camera. Both Kiwi's and David's shot are so far past the digital art line it's not even funny. What is funny, we use to nitpick between traditional photography and digital art and now it seems like we are nitpicking between digital art and digital art. What point does it serve?
Message edited by author 2008-01-06 00:34:51.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2008 12:50:05 AM · #474 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I would say it's a perfectly legitimate example of time-lapse, however there's technically no difference between this and the golfer (or even Kiwiness') shot, and we ARE talking about a technique with time-lapse. If the kid merely turned around in the middle of the sequence, the photographer could choose those frames and it would look like he's having a conversation with himself. |
You make it sound like if the kid did appear to interact with himself that it would cross over some new line. That line was crossed a long time ago when the scene was photoshopped into existence and not in the camera. Both Kiwi's and David's shot are so far past the digital art line it's not even funny. What is funny, we use to nitpick between traditional photography and digital art and now it seems like we are nitpicking between digital art and digital art. What point does it serve? |
The disturbing aspect of this is what "could" have happened. If we apply that criteria to validation then no image is safe in any challenge. Could I have photoshopped the lizard into my Land (not Sea) entry? Yes, but supplying the original proved I didn't. My DQd Time Lapse image is a linear capture over time and in sequence. Could they be out of sequence or not form the same sequence? Sure, but I can provide all the frames to prove they aren't. |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 07:54:07 AM · #475 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
My DQd Time Lapse image is a linear capture over time and in sequence. Could they be out of sequence or not form the same sequence? Sure, but I can provide all the frames to prove they aren't. |
So could Kiwiness, or indeed ANYBODY who assembled a Photoshop composite. As I said , I don't think there's really any way to distinguish between them. |
|
